Excellent discussion on US President raising the debt ceiling unilaterally...

Unwad your panties. He would have done it 6 months or so ago if he thought he could. He's a constitutional lawyer, ya' know, and not shy on signing executive orders. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You didn't read what I wrote above.

There are reasons based on prudent politics not to take unilateral action on the debt ceiling. That doesn't mean that such action is unconstitutional.

So the fact that he didn't do it six months ago means nothing. But his hand is being forced now.

If you have a link to an article FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE that explains why it is unconstitutional to take unilateral action on the debt ceiling and how POTUS can be blocked from doing so, then post the link.

Breitbart does not count as a reputable source.

I hope he does! Will just add to the legacy... Originally Posted by nwarounder

you're an idiot



The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments. The debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past.
Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history. That would precipitate another financial crisis and threaten the jobs and savings of everyday Americans – putting the United States right back in a deep economic hole, just as the country is recovering from the recent recession.


that would go right along with the republican legacy ...

no thanks

and ?

You didn't read what I wrote above.

There are reasons based on prudent politics not to take unilateral action on the debt ceiling. That doesn't mean that such action is unconstitutional.

So the fact that he didn't do it six months ago means nothing. But his hand is being forced now.

If you have a link to an article FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE that explains why it is unconstitutional to take unilateral action on the debt ceiling and how POTUS can be blocked from doing so, then post the link.

Breitbart does not count as a reputable source. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I read what you wrote. You tend to get panicky. My response was to the thread posted.

Here's the President doubting the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. Again, we went thru this 6 months or more ago. Yeah, the article doesn't go thru why its unconstitutional but its from the President's mouth. You know, he's a constitutional lawyer and not shy on using Executive Orders.

BTW, Slate is about as reputable as Breitbart.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...g-debt-ceiling

I read what you wrote. You tend to get panicky. My response was to the thread posted.

Here's the President doubting the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. Again, we went thru this 6 months or more ago. Yeah, the article doesn't go thru why its unconstitutional but its from the President's mouth. You know, he's a constitutional lawyer and not shy on using Executive Orders.

BTW, Slate is about as reputable as Breitbart.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...g-debt-ceiling Originally Posted by gnadfly

same question came up in 011, apparently the POTUS might have the juice ... the reublitards caved, just like they will this time

bump

I read what you wrote. You tend to get panicky. My response was to the thread posted.

Here's the President doubting the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. Again, we went thru this 6 months or more ago. Yeah, the article doesn't go thru why its unconstitutional but its from the President's mouth. You know, he's a constitutional lawyer and not shy on using Executive Orders.

BTW, Slate is about as reputable as Breitbart.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...g-debt-ceiling Originally Posted by gnadfly

Die you even read the link you posted?

Obama never said he didn't have the power to do it. His only concern was the political ramifications of it. That is essentially what I said.

Quote:
-----------------------------------
"Setting aside the legal analysis, what matters is is that if you start having a situation in which there's legal controversy about the U.S. Treasury's authority to issue debt, the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional because people wouldn't be sure. It would be tied up in litigation for a long time. That's going to make people nervous."
"So a lot of the strategies that people have talked about, well the president can roll out a big coin, or he can resort to some other constitutional measure," he added. "What people ignore is that ultimately what matters is, 'What are the people who are buying treasury bills think?'"
--------------------------------------

As for competent journalism, Slate is head and shoulders above Breitbart, even if it is left-leaning magazine. And the author, Eric Posner, is a calm intellectual, not a knucklehead firebrand. And he is the son of Richard Posner, so he comes from conservative intellectual stock.

And I don't "tend" to get panicky. I just recognize reckless idiots playing chicken with the economy.

What does concern me is that the GOP is going to come out of this looking bad. They will get nothing significant out of Obama and they will look weakened.

All because of know-nothing, single issue debt fanatics, who really don't understand what they are doing.

bump Originally Posted by CJ7

Why, would you "bump" your crap 7 minutes after you post it?...

Your butt buddy Bumped one of his SPAM threads five times in 30 minutes, even though nobody responded to it.

Great post, Simple Jack.

Die you even read the link you posted?

Obama never said he didn't have the power to do it. His only concern was the political ramifications of it. That is essentially what I said.

Quote:
-----------------------------------
"Setting aside the legal analysis, what matters is is that if you start having a situation in which there's legal controversy about the U.S. Treasury's authority to issue debt, the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional because people wouldn't be sure. It would be tied up in litigation for a long time. That's going to make people nervous."
"So a lot of the strategies that people have talked about, well the president can roll out a big coin, or he can resort to some other constitutional measure," he added. "What people ignore is that ultimately what matters is, 'What are the people who are buying treasury bills think?'"
--------------------------------------

As for competent journalism, Slate is head and shoulders above Breitbart, even if it is left-leaning magazine. And the author, Eric Posner, is a calm intellectual, not a knucklehead firebrand. And he is the son of Richard Posner, so he comes from conservative intellectual stock.

And I don't "tend" to get panicky. I just recognize reckless idiots playing chicken with the economy.

What does concern me is that the GOP is going to come out of this looking bad. They will get nothing significant out of Obama and they will look weakened.

All because of know-nothing, single issue debt fanatics, who really don't understand what they are doing. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes, didn't you read my caveat? Read the the first sentence that you quoted. If he was POSITIVELY 100% sure it was legal, he wouldn't of qualified it with " the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional because people wouldn't be sure." If Obama was POSITIVELY 100% sure, he'd have threatened to use the 14th Amendment more than 6 months ago when this came up. He didn't. He's a Constitutional Scholar, you know, and not afraid to sign executive orders.

Yes, you tend to get panicky. Your HPV vaccination thread is a good example.

Slate is just another (pick your directions) leaning extremist website just like Brietbart that is full of like-minded, echo chamber, squawking journalists that in their case blows smoke up Obama's ass. At least Brietbart's journalists are actually doing some investigative reporting on the administration instead of Slate's constant intellectual theorizing about how Obama's nuanced policies are making the Democrats look brilliant and the Republicans look crazy.

Some here would make the case that Obama and his Democratic enablers are the ones playing with the economy. And that enabling Obama no matter how incompetent he demonstrates he is, is their "single issue."

You are watching too much TV. Don't fall for the Barackolypse hype.

Yes, didn't you read my caveat? Read the the first sentence that you quoted. If he was POSITIVELY 100% sure it was legal, he wouldn't of qualified it with " the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional because people wouldn't be sure." If Obama was POSITIVELY 100% sure, he'd have threatened to use the 14th Amendment more than 6 months ago when this came up. He didn't. He's a Constitutional Scholar, you know, and not afraid to sign executive orders.

Yes, you tend to get panicky. Your HPV vaccination thread is a good example.

Slate is just another (pick your directions) leaning extremist website just like Brietbart that is full of like-minded, echo chamber, squawking journalists that in their case blows smoke up Obama's ass. At least Brietbart's journalists are actually doing some investigative reporting on the administration instead of Slate's constant intellectual theorizing about how Obama's nuanced policies are making the Democrats look brilliant and the Republicans look crazy.

Some here would make the case that Obama and his Democratic enablers are the ones playing with the economy. And that enabling Obama no matter how incompetent he demonstrates he is, is their "single issue."

You are watching too much TV. Don't fall for the Barackolypse hype. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Your standard of "positively 100% sure" is ridiculous and has no basis - even with Obama. In fact, just the opposite with Obama.

No politician of either party has ever required that much certainty about constitutionality before proceeding with legislation.

And if you had paused to think about is, you would realize Obama doesn't follow that standard either. There were LOTS of questions about the individual mandate prior to passing Obamacare. And the ONLY reason it passed constitutional muster is because John Roberts decided to treat it like an income tax (which the government can do) instead of a requirement to buy insurance (which it can't).

And I'm pretty certain that if I took the time to search, i would find plenty of posts by you about how Obama willingly disregards the constitution. So, which is it?

So, no, I don't think that Obama was restrained in any way 6 months ago about questions of constitutionality of raising the debt ceiling. And neither do you, judging by your past posts.

The debt ceiling debate is simply political theater. Grandstanding for the fans. Like a WWF match. Neither party wants to quit spending. So relax, overspending fans. The dollars will keep being printed.

Just get rid of the debt ceiling. It wastes time. Or better yet, get rid of the spenders!

I'll give you that 100% certainty is likely a bad choice of phrase. Let me change it to "strongly confident."

But this isn't "just legislation" but Obama usurping Congressional Power and doing so in an unprecedented way. That is why he would need to be "strongly confident." He isn't . He knows its a pipe dream of his enablers. Just like it was more than 6 months ago. He's a Constitutional Scholar and doesn't mind signing an executive order to get his way, you know.

Just like his enablers wanted him to sign an executive order banning guns 5 months or so ago, he knows he doesn't have the Constitutional power.

Did you read your Slate article? Not very scholarly. They took the 14th amendment and edited a sentence to read to fit their beliefs. Its actually a very small part of the article and the rest of the article doesn't go very far in supporting their "theory."

Let me help you out with some advice: if the price of gold goes up $200 an oz in one day, your panicking is justified and you need to act on it.

The debt ceiling debate is simply political theater. Grandstanding for the fans. Like a WWF match. Neither party wants to quit spending. So relax, overspending fans. The dollars will keep being printed.

Just get rid of the debt ceiling. It wastes time. Or better yet, get rid of the spenders! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

stfu ... when we need your inept opinion two or three of us will fart in harmony

The debt ceiling debate is simply political theater. Grandstanding for the fans. Like a WWF match. Neither party wants to quit spending. So relax, overspending fans. The dollars will keep being printed.

Just get rid of the debt ceiling. It wastes time. Or better yet, get rid of the spenders! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If the debt ceiling were done away with the country would look like the Wal-mart in Louisiana that had shoppers with EBT cards with no limits due to a glitch.